Standing Committee E

[Mr. Christopher Chopein the Chair]

Clause 18

Publication of proposals for alteration of school

Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 340, in clause 18, page 13, line 2, leave out ‘maintained' and insert ‘community'.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 384, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, after ‘authority', insert
‘or it is a proposal that all the maintained schools administered by that local education authority should become foundation schools,'.
No. 341, in clause 18, page 13, line 11, leave out subsection (b).

Edward Leigh: Good morning, Mr. Chope. I hope that you are rested after the exciting events of yesterday and that we can now get back to work on this important Bill.
The clause deals with the publication of proposals to make the alterations to schools provided for under clause 17, which we debated on Tuesday. Clause 18 requires a local education authority to publish its proposals in a prescribed manner, but permits it to do so for any maintained school. It allows the LEA to make alterations not only for community schools, which is fair enough—after all, community schools are run by LEAs—but for voluntary or foundation schools. With the amendment, I seek to find out what might happen.
I believe that a local education authority should be able to publish proposals only for community schools, and not for voluntary or foundation schools. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that she does not envisage LEAs muscling in to make alterations to voluntary or foundation schools. I cannot believe that that is her intention, but it would be useful to hear her views on the matter. For instance, if the governing body of a voluntary or foundation school requires or does not require the enlargement of its premises, or if the governing body wants to add 16 to 18-year-olds to the school’s admissions, or if the school already has a sixth form and does want to lose it, the decisions on all such changes and similarly vital matters should rest with the governing body of the school. Because an overwhelming proportion of schools—as much as63 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has said—are community schools I see no merit in LEAs, which have quite enough work to do with their own schools, trying to make alterations to others.
The amendments would limit LEAs’ scope to order a change to community schools only. According to my reading of the clause—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—unless the amendments are accepted the LEA could cut off the sixth form of a voluntary school, order a voluntary school to stop providing for children with special needs, or order such a school to start making such provision. I cannot believe that that is the Minister’s intention. There is no point in voluntary or foundation schools having governing bodies if, in practice, such vital decisions are taken out of their hands.
I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 384, which deals with an important point. We support the concept of foundation schools: we hope they are successful and that we have more of them. I wish the Minister well in that endeavour. Unfortunately, the concept is nothing like the policy that the Prime Minister declared in the White Paper. His policy, which bears repetition because we share it, that all maintained schools should be “independent state schools”. That is my vision also. I believe that there are still far too many apron strings tying foundation schools to local authority diktats. Even more apron strings tie them to diktats from the Department for Education and Skills. None the less, foundation schools are a step in the right direction—one on which we can build when we take power.
It follows that if a local authority, perhaps a rather progressive one, can see the benefit to children’s education of having all the maintained schools in its area given the independence offered by foundation status, it should be free to make a proposal under clause 9 that all its schools should become foundation schools. I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who reminded me that Kent, for example, ensured that all its schools were grant maintained—

Jonathan R Shaw: That is wrong.

Edward Leigh: Well, if it is wrong, I bow to local knowledge, but certainly a very large number of schools in Kent were grant maintained.
Jonathan Shawindicated dissent.

Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I can only repeat the information that was given to me only last night by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. It is probably very likely that that authority had success in persuading schools to become grant maintained. What the hon. Gentleman says does not defeat the point that I was making. I was only trying to adduce an example to show that a local authority may well want all its schools to become foundation schools. The Bill should provide for that to happen, which is why I tabled amendment No. 384.

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend made very worthwhile points in moving his amendment—

Jonathan R Shaw: And a wrong one.

Christopher Chope: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take a speaking part, he must rise to his feet.

Nick Gibb: Thank you, Mr. Chope. My hon. Friend’s amendments reflect the Government vision originally set out in the White Paper. Paragraph 2.5 of the White Paper states:
“We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a Trust.”
The amendments therefore reflect the Government’s intention.
I shall talk about the clause more generally, if I may, and make a short stand part contribution to the debate. The document entitled “A Short Guide to the Education and Inspections Bill 2006” states on page 4:
“Local authorities will also have extended powers (under clause 18) to propose the enlargement of the premises, the addition or discontinuance of SEN provision or the addition of a sixth form to any foundation, foundation special or voluntary school.”
That is set out in clause 18(2)(b). It would be helpful if the Minister explained why she believes that it is necessary to give those extra powers to local authorities in relation to foundation schools and voluntary schools. The powers are benign, but apart from the power to propose discontinuing SEN provision—we dealt with that issue through an amendment to an earlier clause—the powers relate to expansion and creation. I note that there are no powers to force foundation or voluntary schools to take extra pupils, only powers to expand premises. However, it would be helpful to know why the Minister believes that the powers are needed.
Subsection (2) is about alterations to schools that local authorities can propose. As one would expect, they have more powers in relation to community schools than in relation to foundation schools. The details of the powers are set out in the draft regulations circulated by the Minister. Regulation 5(3) of the draft School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools) (England) Regulations 2006 states:
“In the case of voluntary, foundation or foundation special schools, a local education authority may only propose one or more of the alterations set out in section 18(2)(b)(i)-(iii).”
However, it then states in square brackets and in italics:
“We intend eventually to set those out in more detail in a new part of schedule 4”.
My concern is not that the regulations circulated for guidance purposes only are not complete. That is perfectly understandable. My concern is whether the Government intend to insert into schedule 4 to the regulations details that give local authorities more power—for example, to expand premises—than they have over community schools, which are already dealt with in part 1 of schedule 4. Can the Minister provide reassurance that there is no such intention?
While we are talking about the regulations relating to clause 18, will the Minister explain why the governing body of a foundation or community school or a community special school does not have the power to expand its premises under part 3 of schedule 2 tothe regulations? Similarly, under schedule 4, a local education authority appears not to be able to publish proposals to enlarge the premises of community special schools, although it can propose an expansion in the number of pupils at such schools. That seems to be rather an odd difference.
Finally, paragraph 11 of schedule 2 to the regulations lists a series of changes of category that a foundation or voluntary school can propose, including changing from a community school to a voluntary school. That does not make sense, because the provision does not relate to community schools; it relates to foundation schools. How can a foundation school move from being a community school to a voluntary school? Is that simply a drafting error or is it an issue on which we need to expand further?

Annette Brooke: I want to make a few brief comments. Not surprisingly, I do not agree with the general thrust of the amendments. We consider the local authority to be the body with the strategic view and, as such, it should be the one to publish proposals. We might not agree with those proposals, but if the Government’s vision is truly that the local education authority should have a strengthened commissioning role, it is essential that the publication of proposals be in the local authority’s hands.
On clause 18(4), and following logically from the arguments that we made on clause 17, we want the possibility of a return to community school status, as well.
Clause 18(2) merits discussion and explanation. I have difficulty with the idea that the local authority is always bad. It might not always be good, but it is not always bad. A really good local authority, in playing its strategic role, is there to help out even grant-maintained schools—as happened in my local area when things went pear-shaped—because it operates on behalf of the whole community. Problems occur in all types of school, and when the chips are down it is usually the local authority that has the expertise to help.
The Minister is aware that I have a tricky case in my constituency, in which replacement buildings have not been provided following a fire that happened more than six years ago. The school has now become a foundation school. Will she say whether there is or should be a process to deal with the rare circumstances of an out-and-out conflict between a school and a local authority? Unlike the Conservatives, I do not envisage such circumstances arising frequently, but I think that they can occur rarely. Perhaps we should tease out whether we need a regulation to cover exceptional circumstances.

Jacqui Smith: As we have heard, amendments Nos. 340 and 341 are designed to prevent a local authority from making proposals for alterations to foundation and voluntary schools. However, our proposals for some expanded abilities for local authorities are made in the context that we have discussed under earlier clauses—a new framework for school organisation, involving, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) rightly recognises, a significant new strategic role for the local authority as the commissioner of provision and the champion of parents. That is the rationale for the proposals in this clause.
Under current legislation, although a local authority can propose the closure of any maintained school, it cannot make other sorts of proposal in respect of voluntary schools and can propose only the expansion of foundation schools. We think that in order to discharge its responsibilities properly, a local authority should be able to propose alterations relating to expansion and to special educational needs and sixth-from provision in respect of all maintained schools in its area.
I cannot provide all the reassurances that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) seeks, but I can reassure him about the removal of a sixth form—an issue that he raised. The changes that a local authority can make are limited to the addition to a school of a sixth form. It could not publish proposals to remove a sixth form from a foundation or voluntary school.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked whether the section in italics in the illustrative regulations implied that we wanted to go further in schedule 4. I can reassure him that have no intention of going further than what is spelled out in those illustrative regulations.
Clause 18(2)(b) will ensure that a local authority can propose changes that extend choice for parents and that the necessary provision is available in the area. It is precisely because we envisage that more schools will be self-governing foundation or voluntary aided schools that we need to reconsider local authorities’ powersso that they can operate their strategic role appropriately—not running schools or making day-to-day decisions, but being responsible, as champions of pupils and parents in their area, for ensuring and extending parent choice.

Edward Leigh: Is the Minister reassuring the Committee that local authorities will not have a hands-on role in voluntary aided schools? I think that that is what sheis trying to say. If local authorities are to be commissioners rather than providers of services, what sort of decisions or initiatives does she envisage that they might make in respect of voluntary aided schools?

Jacqui Smith: I was just spelling that out. As the clause makes clear, the role of commissioner implies that authorities will be able to publish proposals for particular provision that is necessary to deliver choice for parents and pupils. That is why we are proposing that local authorities, particularly those with many foundation schools, should be able to propose, for example, the addition of a sixth form—not its removal, as I assured the hon. Gentleman—or of an SEN unit to work alongside schools in the area to reassure people that there is sufficient specialist SEN provision. Those are the sorts of proposal that the clause covers.
The provisions will not allow a local authority to impose such changes. As clause 19 and the illustrative regulations make clear, the local authority will have to consult interested parties, including the school, and publish its proposals, giving an opportunity for objections or comments. If a foundation of voluntary school does not agree with the proposal, clause 21(5) provides that the school’s governing body or trustees can require that those proposals be referred to the adjudicator.

Nick Gibb: I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend’s intervention. Will she explain why subsection (2)(b)(ii) gives local authorities the power to discontinue SEN provision in a school? I understand why they might want the power to establish it, but why the power to discontinue? That is the only negative and destructive power in the clause, and I am slightly concerned about it.

Jacqui Smith: As we were discussing the other day when we talked about the local authorities’ role of ensuring sufficient and appropriate provision, it might be appropriate to reorganise SEN provision in an area and to close one unit in order to make provision elsewhere. As the hon. Gentleman said, only in those circumstances will a local authority be able to open and close such provision.
Our proposals strike a reasonable balance between allowing the authority to propose changes in order to improve the supply of school places, and providing for the schools themselves to ensure that decisions are taken by the adjudicator if there is a disagreement. I hope that the hon. Member for Gainsborough feels sufficiently reassured that the balance is reasonable and will therefore withdraw the amendment.
In amendment No. 384 the hon. Gentleman argues that local authorities should be able to propose that all their schools become foundation schools, which would give the local authority a significant power. At the same time, however, he argues that we ought to limit the powers that we give to local authorities. I think that he intended the proposal to apply only to community schools, but as drafted it would include voluntary schools—faith schools, for example. I do not think that the governing bodies of voluntary schools would welcome local authorities having the power to turn them all into foundation schools against their will.
More importantly, the principled argument that we have made throughout is that the decision on whether to change status from a community school to a foundation school, or whether to acquire a trust, should be taken in the first instance by the governing bodies of the schools themselves. Such a change is not something that could be imposed by a local authority on all its schools. I hate to tar the hon. Gentleman with this charge, but he is making a very centralising proposition. I know that he would not want that, so I hope that he will not press that amendment.

Edward Leigh: I am happy to withdraw the amendment, because I am reassured by the Minister’s assurance that there is no question of a local authority being able to step in to remove a sixth form, which is where I suspect there would probably be most controversy. I take her point about amendment No. 384. I wanted to probe the Government’s thinking, but clearly I do not want to give local authorities the power to interfere with the status of voluntary aided schools. In fact, that amendment would not be a centralising measure as such, because the local authority would be surrendering its power if all the schools in an area became foundation schools. However, I take her point.
We shall try to accept the right hon. Lady’s assurance that the clause is not a centralising measure, because that would be unfortunate. I am prepared to accept her word that it is benign, particularly in relation to foundation schools, and that it is designed only to allow local authorities to make suggestions for SEN provision, for example. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Proposals under section 18: procedure

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 206, in clause 19, page 14, line 17, at end insert—
‘(3A) Where regulations made by virtue of subsection (2)—
(a) confer functions on a local education authority, or
(b) enable a local education authority or the Secretary of State to require proposals to be referred to the adjudicator,
the local education authority (or the Secretary of State where applicable) must exercise its functions and rights with a view to encouraging all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a trust or foundation.
(3B) Where proposals are referred to the adjudicator under provisions made by virtue of subsection (2), the adjudicator shall make his decision with a view to encouraging all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a trust or foundation.'.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenientto discuss the following amendments: No. 207, in clause 30, page 21, line 18, at end insert—
‘ “self-governing”, in relation to a maintained school, means any of the following schools in England—
(a) a foundation or voluntary school;
(b) a foundation special school; and
(c) an Academy.'.
New clause 15—Duty to encourage schools to acquire a trust or foundation—
‘A local education authority shall ensure that their functions under this Part are exercised with a view to encouraging all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a trust or foundation.'.
New clause 13—Maintained schools to become independent charitable trusts—
‘(1) All maintained schools shall become independent charitable trusts.
(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations to give effect to subsection (1).
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) must provide for the trusts established in pursuance of subsection (1) to be funded on the same basis as grant-maintained schools established under the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988.'.
New clause 19—Maintained schools to become grant-maintained schools—
‘(1) All maintained schools shall become grant-maintained schools within the meaning of the Education Reform Act 1988.
(2) Local education authorities shall cease to play any part in the allocation of school funding.
(3) The Secretary of State must make regulations to give effect to subsections (1) and (2).'.
No. 201, in clause 158, page 108, line 12, at end insert—
‘(aa) regulations under section [Maintained schools to become independent charitable trusts], or'.
No. 237, in clause 158, page 108, line 12, at end insert—
‘(aa) regulations under section [Maintained schools to become grant-maintained schools], or'.

John Hayes: It is good to serve on the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Chope. Seeing you in the Chair reminds me of the Queen’s eightieth birthday—you share all her dignity, but not her age.
The clause relates to the procedures by which prescribed alterations to schools published under clause 18 are made. The amendment would require that, where the regulations under subsections (1) and (2) confer functions on local authorities or allow them or the Secretary of State to refer proposals to the adjudicator, they will exercise those functions
“with a view to encouraging all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a trust or foundation.”
In our previous sitting, the Minister said, rightly, that some would like to place an obligation on local authorities for all schools in their area to become self-governing. She said that every school should instead be encouraged to do so. I said that the Prime Minister and the Minister once took the view that all schools should be encouraged to adopt the new freedoms and independence in question. I quoted the White Paper, which says:
“At the heart of this new vision are Trust schools ... We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a Trust.”
I then put it to the Minister that she might have changed her mind and bowed to pressure from the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who is a formidable figure. He and others made a powerfulcase that the spirit of the White Paper, with its encouragement of all schools to acquire a trust, would not necessarily be efficacious. He thought that it would be better for some schools not to follow the route set out in the White Paper.
I tabled the amendments with the intention of reinforcing the Minister’s position and injecting a little more steel into her backbone, so that she can see off the challenges from the hon. Gentleman and others. He is the acceptable face of the rebels—the tame rebel—but there are others who will be altogether harder to see off and more intransigent in their determination to frustrate the intentions behind the White Paper and the Bill. We want to help the Minister, as we have throughout the Bill’s progress. The amendments would make the proposals in the White Paper a reality by making it easier for schools to follow the route it envisaged.
The amendments would also ensure that the adjudicator would make decisions on prescribed alterations to schools with a view to their becoming self-governing. A “self-governing” school is defined in amendment No. 207 as a foundation or voluntary school, a foundation special school or an academy. New clause 15 would take further the duty to work with a view to schools becoming self-governing by applying it to all functions of the local education authority under part 2 of the Bill.
The amendments go to the very heart of the Bill. Do we envisage a future in which all schools will be self-governing? In our previous sitting, the Minister confirmed that she still believes it right to encourage that. Replying to my intervention, she said:
“I have not changed my mind. I am making a distinction between compulsion and flexibility and enabling. The legislation is all about allowing schools to move in the direction that we believe to be the most effective, which is spelled out in the White Paper.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 25 April 2006; c. 442.]
She clearly wants all schools to become self-governing. She envisages not the future that the hon. Member for Bury, North wants, but one in which all schools take on the new freedoms available to them, to the benefit of the children who attend them.
We are all in this business to try to deliver the best education possible for as many children as possible, to build on good practice and to create effective schools. We should make it clear through the debate on the amendments that that is where we all want to be. Is it the destination to which we are all travelling? It certainly is not where other Members of the governing party who are not on the Committee want us to go. We will not ask why, as that would be indiscreet and, perhaps, impolite—[Interruption.] Well, they are here in the form of the Liberal Democrats, who speak for them on this Committee, and who will doubtless make their comments about the amendments in due course.
Those people have a perfectly reasonable point to make. They take a different view on education, the nature of school government and, I guess, the White Paper. That is fair enough; let us have that debate, but let us be clear where the Government stand on it. I want to be sure that they have not bowed, that there is absolute certainty about their intentions, and that they remain true to the spirit of the White Paper and of Lord Adonis, who has been a powerful figure in education for the Government. More than that, he has been a powerful exponent of many of the virtues in the White Paper that are given force in the Bill, and which we support.
I recommend to the Committee a book by Andrew Adonis and Stephen Pollard, called “A Class Act”. It talks about the myth of Britain’s classless society and goes into education matters in some detail, including the subject of grammar schools, which we will no doubt discuss later in our considerations. Lord Adonis is a powerful advocate of grammar schools as a way to enable greater social mobility. However, let us not digress. Indeed, I am sure that you will not allow me to do so, Mr. Chope.
Let us consider the background to the amendments. In a letter to no less a person than the Chairman of the Select Committee—the man who saved John Clare’s cottage for the nation; I do not make light of that—the Secretary of State wrote:
“Enabling schools to benefit from a trust is at the heart of our proposals.”
She went on to say that the amendments would create a duty to encourage all schools to become self-governing. In his monthly press conference, on 11 October, the Prime Minister said:
“By the end of this third term,”—
linguistically he is not at his best here—
“I want every school that wants to be able to be”
one to become
“an independent, non fee-paying state school, with the freedom to innovate and develop in the way it wants and the way the parents of the school want, subject to certain common standards.”
In the introduction to the White Paper, the Prime Minister says:
“Our aim is the creation of a system of independent non-fee paying state schools. It will be for schools to decide whether they wish to acquire a Trust—similar to those that support Academies—or become a self-governing foundation school. But it will be easy for them to do so, without unnecessary bureaucratic interference. And they will do so in a system of fair admissions, fair funding and clear accountability.”
The principle of trust schools is at the heart of the Government’s agenda. It was what drove the White Paper, and is at the core of the Bill. The White Paper says:
“At the heart of this new vision are Trust schools...We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a Trust.”
That is precisely what we say in these amendments. We have become committed to the principles of the White Paper because we think that they are right. What works is what matters. That degree of self-government, in which schools have proper control of their affairs, and the greater diversity and choice that it will produce will be beneficial. It will produce an education system that delivers more for more children.
We want to align ourselves with the Schools Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister inasmuch as they agree with that vision. We could be churlish and say that we got there first, but we are all in the same place, so let us be nothing less than generous about that. On that basis, it would be almost inconceivable for the Minister to reject the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends. They give life to the principles that I have outlined and repeat the pledges that the Prime Minister and others made in the White Paper.
By the time the Select Committee considered the matter, however, the Government had begun to backtrack. As I said, they were subject to pressure. I do not need to tell you, Mr. Chope, that parliamentary arithmetic had a part to play in that. The Government did not expect my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friends the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister for Schools to provide the principled opposition that they did; they thought that the Opposition might deceive them and not support the Bill. As we know, however, Mr. Chope, that is not the kind of Opposition that the Conservatives represent. We are absolutely principled in our determination to do our best for the children of this country and we would never let petty squabbles, short-term gains and a miserable pyrrhic victory obscure that vision. We were therefore there to back the Government. But, uncertain, they felt that they had to bend in the direction of those with a rather less clear view of the virtues of the White Paper and everything that it can do.
The Select Committee report said:
“The Secretary of State has told us that there will be no incentives offered, or pressure exerted, to encourage schools to become Trust schools. The decision to become a Trust will be for individual schools. We welcome these assurances. That being the case, the Schools Commissioner is likely to perform a much less executive role in relation to Trust schools than the White Paper suggests.”
That view was not, however, shared by the whole Select Committee. A minority report welcoming trust schools was submitted by some of its members, who are also on this Committee. I pay tribute to their work on the Select Committee and to their courage in producing a minority report. The report said:
“We support the development of Trust schools, with their greater autonomy and the external support that a trust would bring. This autonomy should include full ownership of assets. Independence must mean full independence if it is to have impact and real value. We believe that as the Trust is a new category of school it should be a duty to promote it. We also believe that the Government should leave open the option of a requirement for schools to become Trusts or independent of the local authority in some form.”
The minority report, the White Paper and the Opposition are clear: we want to encourage all schools to become trust schools, although I say no more than encourage. Contrary to what the Minister quite naughtily suggested at our previous sitting, this isnot about the difference between obligation and encouragement, and we should not oblige schools to do things that are not in their interests and which their governors and the local community do not want. This is about how actively we encourage schools—that is the real difference between us. The White Paper was clear about that, but the Bill is less so; the Prime Minister and Lord Adonis were clear about it, but Ministers are now rather less so. I appreciate that Ministers are in a difficult position, but I want to be helpful and guide them in the direction in which I know they want to travel.

Annette Brooke: I should like to tease out exactly what encouragement means. Does it mean thatthe Conservative party would give favourable consideration to bids for grants if it was in government? As we have suggested, schools have been encouraged to take the academy route. Would trust foundations be encouraged in the same fashion?

John Hayes: The critical determinant is what is best for the local school and the children who attend it, and that would apply whether or not it was a trust school. There should not be a policy of discriminating in favour of a type of school that did not meet the interests of local parents and children. I do not think that the Minister or the Opposition would want to go down that road. We should not in any way propose that there should be favourable treatment outside of the criteria of what is best for the local community, the children and the school. I am rooted to that principle.
It seems to me that the issue is the vision in particular localities. If it becomes the view in a locality that such an aim is desirable, much would be done to encourage it. If, however, it is absolutely clear in some localities that people do not want that to happen, it will not happen or will, at least, be difficult to achieve. We have indicated throughout our proceedings—I will not go over them, as that would be tedious—points at which the local authority could obstruct, obscure, obfuscate or deter.
It is our worry that some local authorities will not seize the initiative and welcome the Bill with open arms but, indeed, will do their best to frustrate it and the Government’s ambitions. We need a balance, but I am sure that the balance lies in encouraging schools to go down the trust school route because we believe that that would be beneficial.
Are the Government willing to back their own instincts? Do they want to move to a freer education market? Is the White Paper a bluff, appealing over the heads of Labour MPs to middle-class voters without offering real change, or will the Government be frightened into making concessions because of opposition from their own MPs? We believe that the Government should have the courage of their convictions. It is important that the Bill should become law in a form that is likely to bring about the original objectives. That is why we have tabled the amendments. 
The amendments make the position crystal clear. In amendment No. 206 we suggest that we effectively encourage local authorities to deliver the vision described in the White Paper, which I have reinforced in this short debate. Our additions to clause 19 would enable us to achieve what the Government hope and want to achieve. New clause 15 goes a little further, as I have said, but it is in much the same vein.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendments. I do not think that there is any doubt that they should. It would be a healthy sign that the Committee is coming to terms with the consensus that has developed, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has spoken about before. It would also, I think, reaffirm the Government’s position and make it clear whether they will be absolutely certain about where they want to go. 
The Minister has an opportunity to see off her critics. It is an important chance to reassure parents, communities, teachers and governors outside this place, who will be hanging on her every word and waiting to see what she will do about our amendments. If she were to accept them, any doubt about commitment and intent could be dispelled. I hope that the amendments will be accepted in that spirit and I am delighted to move them in my name and that of my hon. Friends.

Edward Leigh: I am happy to speak to new clause 13, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), and new clause 19, which provide the opportunity for a wide-ranging debate.
I am proud of what the Conservative Government achieved in their 18 years—

Annette Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: I have hardly started, but of course I will give way.

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Will there will be any role at all for a local education authority if his proposals are accepted?

Edward Leigh: No role at all, is the simple answer tothat simple question. [Interruption.] I missed that sedentary comment from the Minister, but I am sure it was very revealing.

Jonathan R Shaw: It was something about barking.

Edward Leigh: The Minister should be aware what the Prime Minister himself said, which bears repeating, again and again, that eventually he wanted all maintained schools to be “independent state schools”. What did he mean by that? I take it to refer to schools that are still funded completely by the state, that is, the taxpayer—we all accept that—and which therefore are free, but otherwise manage their own affairs, free from overruling or overriding by the local authority or the Department for Education and Skills, or both. Those schools would be as free as the independent schools are in all respects: the organisation of the school, future policies, curriculum and examinations, staffing levels, salary levels—always within the money allocated—disciplinary procedures, budgetary procedures and outside-school-hours provision. They would have all that freedom as in independent schools, within the requirements laid down by the Charity Commission and subject to Ofsted inspection.
That is presumably what the Prime Minister wants, and I am sorry if the Minister thinks that he is barking. That is the Prime Minister’s dream. It is also, I suspect, the dream of many people who work in the maintained sector—the teachers who run the schools, and who are desperately anxious to be able to get on with their own jobs. They are the experts. They want to be free from the Department’s interference, free from endless structural changes and free from endless diktats on the curriculum. They just want to get on with the job of teaching and running their own schools.
If schools were given that freedom it would be the single greatest impetus not just to diversity in the maintained sector but to an increase in standards, and it would transform education in this country. I very much hope that when there is a Conservative Government again we will move towards giving maximum freedom to all schools in the maintained sector.
Under my proposals maintained schools would effectively become independent schools, although they would be funded by the state and would be entirely free at the point of delivery in every respect. They would be subject to the constraints of the Charity Commission, Ofsted and a firm of auditors. All I ask is that all state schools be treated similarly. State schools do not need local and national politicians interfering in them; they do not need us, in this room, to tell them what they should do or how they should teach. We do not do that in many other aspects of our national life, in which people get on with running complex organisations,and do so extremely well. No one doubts, I think, that the independent sector works perfectly well. That comment may, of course, prompt someone to jump up and say, “It is not surprising, because they are better funded than maintained schools,” but it is not just a question of funding. It is a question of freedom and diversity. That is what the independent sector provides and that is the vision that I have for the maintained sector.
Teachers are professional people and highly trained, whether in independent or state schools. Let us start to treat them as professionals. I noticed that a Labour Member of Parliament appeared on “Newsnight” yesterday and said that we should not worry about the reception given to the Secretary of State for Health yesterday, because it is spring, it happened at the seaside, and Ministers are always barracked at NUT conferences, nurses conferences and so on. Why do those health and education service professionals feel so aggrieved? It is because of the endless changes imposed on them. They simply want to get on with their job. They are professional people and I believe that we can trust them.
None of this apparently barking policy is new: it has been implemented before. A Conservative Government introduced grant-maintained schools. That term means simply that those schools were maintained by the state through an annual grant, whose size depended on the number and ages of the children in the school. It was a fairly simple and easy-to-understand system, in which the money followed the pupil. It is immaterial whether we once again use the term “grant-maintained”. I used that term in new clause 19 because there is a precedent for it and it worked in many areas. However, we need not use it in future; we could call them anything. We could call them foundation schools or trust schools, but the essence of my proposal is that they should have freedom and independence equivalent to that of grant-maintained schools—that is the vital point—and that, effectively, all schools should therefore have those freedoms.
I believe that the grant-maintained schools that the Conservatives set up proved conclusively the great benefits to be gained, both for standards and for the effective use of money, through such freedom and independence. I know that grant-maintained schools are controversial and it is claimed that they received beneficial funding in comparison with other schools. We could solve that problem by making all schools effectively grant-maintained schools. Then they would all be funded on the same basis.
I propose that the time has come for all state schools in England and, I hope, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, to become the equivalent of grant-maintained schools. We could of course have a period of preparation for those schools, of two or three years or whatever we liked, under this Bill or a future Bill. However, eventually all primary and secondary state schools would automatically be self-managing, equivalent to the old grant-maintained system.

Angela Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman announcing policy this morning? Is he saying that a future Conservative Government would force all schools to become trust schools and that he would introduce selection?

Edward Leigh: No. I am not in a position to announce policy. I am only a Back Bencher. One of the advantages of being a Back Bencher is that one is entitled to put before the House ideas that may be novel but may eventually become policy—who knows? I am in the happy position of being about to celebrate my 24th year in the House, and 22 years of that time have been spent on the Back Benches. No doubt one reason I spent so many years on those Benches is that I keep producing these novel ideas, but that has not held me back so far, and I shall go on doing it. [Interruption.] I missed that comment, but I am sure that it was flattering.
We could also organise matters, as we did previously, so that the schools would automatically be given charitable status. It would not be necessary for every one to apply separately to the charity commissioners. For instance, the schools would be so-called exempt charities. Grant-maintained schools had that status, which also applies to Oxbridge colleges. They must submit audited accounts, as a company does, to a funding agency. At their height, grant-maintained schools represented one fifth of the state secondary sector and some 500 to 600 primary schools. They ranged in size from a primary school with 19 pupils to Great Barr in Birmingham, which had 2,500 pupils until the abolition of grant-maintained schools under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. This has happened before and could happen again.
The Education Reform Act 1988 made provision for ballots. Its provisions and those of the Education Act 1993 were consolidated in the Education Act 1996, which laid down the following procedure, under which a school might become grant-maintained. Each year, the governing bodies of schools were obliged to consider whether to hold a ballot of parents on whether to seek GM status, unless a ballot had been held in the previous school year. They were required to ballot parents if a written request to do so had been received from the parents of at least 20 per cent. of the pupils registered at the school and no ballot had been held in the previous 12 months. A second ballot of parents had to be held if less than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote did so, and the results of the second ballot were final.
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment could invalidate a ballot and order a further one if irregularities were detected. If a simple majority of parents voted in favour of becoming grant-maintained, the governing body had to publish proposals for the acquisition of GM status within four months of the ballot, and those had to be approved by the Secretary of State. Once a school’s proposals were accepted, a new governing body was incorporated, and took over the running of the school from the previous one on a specified date.
It has all been done before—there were provisions for it—so we can work out how it might be done in future. However, we have to develop a procedure by which the overwhelming majority of schools acquire that status. No doubt the Minister will claim that this is a centralising measure, and that we are trying to impose one vision on all schools. Far from it; the opposite is the case. Because schools would, effectively, be able to teach whatever curriculum they wanted and employ whatever staff they wanted—hire, fire, select and deselect—there would be enormous diversity. We would not need to have all this debate about grammar schools or non-grammar schools. Some schools would be selective and some would not.
The response to my argument is always that that is wrong; schools would want to cherry-pick and so on. However, every school would eventually find its own level. I can never understand those who oppose independence in schools. They imagine that there will suddenly be an enormous, revolutionary change.

Sarah Teather: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: No, I want to finish this important point. Most people who run schools are fairly conservative. They do not want rapid change. One of their reasons for not liking what has gone on in the past 30 or40 years is that they believe that changes have been imposed on them. If we had the courage of our convictions, and allowed schools to do what they wanted, change would be slow and incremental and head teachers would gradually respond to what parents wanted locally. Most schools would stay very much as they are; most comprehensive schools, for instance, would remain comprehensive. It is true that they would want to respond to parents, and many parents want a traditional type of education. Others do not necessarily want that. Some people want faith schools; others do not. Some want uniforms; others do not. Some want traditional education; others want progressive education. Change would be slow.
If only this Committee had the courage to stop interfering and to let the professionals get on with it, there would not be chaos or an enormous revolution in our schools, there would be gradual, incremental change for the better and schools would be able to respond to what parents wanted.

Sarah Teather: I am curious to know what the hon. Gentleman meant when he said that all schools would find their own level.

Edward Leigh: I meant that schools respond to the situation in which they find themselves—to what parents want, and to what they can and should do. That is what life is about, and surely it is what we all do. We provide a service, whether in the public or the private sector, and, depending on our skill or professionalism, people choose whether to use it. Parents are in that situation.
Once schools were free to manage, it would become apparent to parents which school they should send their children to. I agree that most would usually want to send their child to the nearest school. There would not be a revolutionary change. The education system of the early 1950s would not suddenly be replicated, and hundreds of new grammar schools would not freeze out the existing comprehensive schools. Some comprehensive schools might, it is true, want to select more pupils on the basis of ability, but not all would do so, and I do not think that comprehensive schools would suddenly become grammar schools. Others may disagree with my view, but we should at least have the courage of our convictions and allow people the freedom that they surely deserve.
If my amendments were accepted, it would follow that the education departments of county councils, metropolitan boroughs and unitary authorities, which we refer to as local education authorities, would no longer be needed. Even the Department for Education and Skills would have a lot less to do. The independent state schools would be funded according to a precise, easily understood formula, and their funding would be paid to them, probably termly, by a funding agency set up precisely for that purpose. That agency would in turn be paid directly by the Treasury.
With a simple and sensible funding formula, little bureaucracy would be needed. As to the Department, I am sorry that there are officials present, as I am sure that they do a worthwhile job, but I guess that they could be equally well employed elsewhere in Whitehall, because the role of the Department would be very small indeed. Perhaps only about 100 people would be needed altogether to be involved in policy.
My new clauses and various amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me all point in the same direction. It is time for the education system to come of age. It is time to let schools off the hook of excessive bureaucracy and regulations. It is time we really had—not eventually, but now—independent state schools.

Sarah Teather: Well, I am sure that the local councillors in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will be delighted to hear his views about the role of the local authority. I can hear the printing press whirring now, as leaflets containing his quoted remarks are prepared for the local elections. His vision for education would remove any tier of local accountability and any local priority-setting role. It would prevent any kind of flexible funding involving different Departments, which makes possible the joint funding of work that can contribute to projects such as “Every Child Matters”. Needless to say, the Liberal Democrats oppose the amendments and new clauses.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) make it clear yet again that the Conservatives believe community schools to be inferior to other schools. However, they have not proved that, and we have rehearsed the arguments many times in previous sittings, so I shall not cover them again. We shall oppose the amendments.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings commented on the make-up of the Committee—which, on the Labour Benches, is made up of splendid and committed individuals. At least 10 of the Labour Members who voted against the Bill were given the opportunity to serve on the Committee, and refused. I could characterise the Opposition amendments as being of the “We are from the Conservative party and we are here to help you” type. That is not a phrase that would ring convincingly in anyone’s ears. One clear thread of intention runs through all the amendments—the desire to impose a particular form of governance on all schools. That desire manifests itself in slightly different ways, but it is fundamentally the imposition of one model in a context in which we have consistently argued that the way forward is for schools, governing bodies and communities to have autonomy in decision making.

Nick Gibb: Will the right hon. Lady explain what is meant in paragraph 2.5 on page 25 of the White Paper, which says:
“We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a Trust”?

Jacqui Smith: We will, for example, appoint a schools commissioner who will provide support and advice to schools that want to go down that particular route, who will work with those who might want to provide that sort of external support for schools, and who will help with the documentation. That is precisely the sort of practical encouragement and support that I want there to be, but that is fundamentally different from imposing a particular model.

John Hayes: The right hon. Lady must be clear: the White Paper says, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton reminded her:
“We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing”—
not some, not a half or a quarter, but all. That is my hon. Friend’s point, and the Minister failed to answer it.

Jacqui Smith: Well, no, actually; the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton was asking me what “encourage” meant, and I explained. We are clear that self-government is an option for all primary and secondary schools; support and advice will be available for any that choose to take that route.
The most extreme of the amendments are those tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough. As he spelled out in his apocalyptic vision, his amendments would effectively require all schools to become grant-maintained and to be outside the local authority framework. I have to say that I think there is no place for those amendments, or for that approach, either in the Bill or in the Government’s attitude to education.
Secondly, there is a group of amendments that do not go to the same lengths as those tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, but that nevertheless seek to fetter the actions of a whole range of actors in the field of school organisation by requiring them to exercise their functions with regard to a particular view. I have some sympathy with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, but I cannot agree with him on the inflexibility that the amendments would introduce in all circumstances.
To take the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough first, they would, as I suggested, effectively herald a return to an even more extreme version of grant-maintained status for schools, as they would require the Secretary of State to make, by affirmative procedure, regulations requiring all maintained schools to become independent charitable trusts. The amendments would not leave that decision in the hands of the individual governing body, and that was not the case even for the failed GM policy. That goes against everything that our schools White Paper stands for: putting parents and the needs of their children at the heart of the school system; ensuring greater diversity of provision, not central direction; and tailoring education to the needs of individual children.
Crucially, the whole system must be set in a framework of local accountability and determination. We want to ensure that all children are treated fairly under that framework, which must be designed to combat social disadvantage, not perpetuate it. None of my hon. Friends believes in a school system—or a society—where people “find their level”. We believe in a system that promotes opportunities for everybody and ensures that every child is able to fulfil their potential, as was set out in clause 1. We do not accept the status quo—the hon. Gentleman seems to imply that he does—in which where one gets to in life depends on where one starts. That is a fundamental difference in the values that inform our decision making.

Edward Leigh: What proportion of the education budget is siphoned off by the DFES and local authorities before it reaches pupils?

Jacqui Smith: With respect to local authorities, a considerably larger proportion is delegated to schools than was in 1997, because of how we have reformed the funding regime.

Sarah Teather: But does the Minister agree that part of the reserved portion of the budget that local authorities hold is often for very important projects, such as preventing exclusions, and providing cross-borough music facilities, special schools and transport arrangements? It is spent on all sorts of things that other schools may benefit from.

Jacqui Smith: I agree with the hon. Lady that those are carefully defined functions that it is appropriate for local authorities to carry out.

Edward Leigh: If I were to say that the DFES and LEAs siphoned off up to 40 per cent. of the total education budget before it reached pupils, would the Minister recognise that figure? If not, will she tell us her figure?

Jacqui Smith: That is not a figure that I recognise. Delegation from local authorities to schools has increased from about 77 per cent. in 1997 to well over 85 per cent., if not over 90 per cent., now.
What are the other significant differences between the hon. Gentleman’s proposition and that in the Bill? First, he proposes a once-and-for-all shift to what is, in effect, grant-maintained school status. We have made it clear that there may need to be flexibility in the form of a mechanism allowing schools to change their status and consider whether trust status continues to provide what they want. We have therefore built into the Bill provisions to allow a governing body to remove a trust if there are concerns about its performance. Once again, we have flexibility and decision making for a governing body versus an irreversible and inflexible model.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman made it completely clear that, under his model, all schools should be able to return to a system of selection. As I have identified on numerous occasions, that is the absolute antithesis of his argument that parents should be able to choose the schools that are appropriate for them. Under that system, schools would choose pupils, not the other way round.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman acknowledged perfectly openly that, under his proposals, GM status is part of a deliberate attempt to break up the local family of schools by encouraging them to opt out of local authorities; indeed, it would completely destroy the education function of local authorities. As we know, GM schools were directly funded and given additional capital and recurrent funding, in contrast to other schools. Indeed, they were given about the only capital funding that was around at the time—talk about a bribe.
The hon. Gentleman talked almost in passing about the national funding agency that would need to be formed. There was a funding agency to direct funding to grant-maintained schools under the previous regime. It is fundamentally wrong to suggest that setting up a large national bureaucracy to fund every school in the country would not provide more jobs for DFES officials. That proposition goes against everything for which the Opposition have argued, particularly at the last election. It would lead to a large new national bureaucracy—that is what the hon. Gentleman is arguing for.
The Government are clear that trust schools will remain within the local authority-maintained sector and be funded by the local authority on the same basis as other schools. As we have repeatedly made clear, no school will be forced to acquire a trust, although the option to do so will be available to all schools. It will be for each individual school to make that decision according to its specific needs and local circumstances. Our Bill and our approach are permissive and enabling, unlike the prescriptive approach taken by Opposition Members.

John Hayes: I am not sure how the Minister can describe encouragement as prescriptive. Our amendments are wedded to the principles in the White Paper. What sort of future does she envisage? Does she, like the White Paper, envisage all schools following the proposed path? Will half of schools do that, or a quarter?

Jacqui Smith: In fact, I was just coming to what I might call the mainstream Opposition amendments. I have to say that I feel marginally warmer towards them than I do towards those of the hon. Member for Gainsborough. An interesting tussle is going on over Conservative policy, and it will be interesting to see what emerges at the end of the process. Will Conservative Members flip in one direction or flop in another during that policy formation process? I suspect that their leader will wait to hear what other people have to say to him before he makes up his mind.
Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 and new clause 15 are not damaging in the same way as are those of the hon. Member for Gainsborough, but they are unnecessary. They attempt to force a particular model on to local education authorities, the schools adjudicator and the Secretary of State, and effectively to second guess a school’s decision.
I can appreciate the sentiment behind the amendments, which, to a certain extent, is consistent with the objectives that we have spelt out and that the hon. Gentleman highlighted today. In our view, however, the way in which they seek to impose those models in all circumstances would work contrary to the policy of giving schools the freedom to decide for themselves how they wish to develop in order to meet the needs of pupils, parents and the wider community.

Annette Brooke: Will the Minister confirm that the proportion of the total education funding held back by central Government is higher than that which might be retained for the local authorities’ functions that we have just described?

Jacqui Smith: No, I will not confirm those figures. The hon. Lady is right; I have made that argument, particularly in relation to local government. This Government, however, have put in the hands of schools and governing bodies more resources and powers to enable them to make the decisions that matter for their pupils and communities.
Our proposals will provide freedom and fairness for all schools, and sharp accountability for results. We do not want to fetter their autonomy and interfere with their procedural rules. That is why the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, which seek to impose directly a particular model, and the more mainstream proposals from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, which would require bodies other than the governing body to attempt to second guess, and—I must say—in some cases, frustrate the wishes of an individual school, go against the spirit of the Bill and the White Paper. That is why I shall resist them.

John Hayes: I invited the right hon. Lady to affirm her support for the principle of trust schools and to repeat the assurances given by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State when they introduced the White Paper anticipating this legislation. I did that with amendments that say simply that encouragement to that end should be part of the Bill. I do not regard encouragement as prescriptive or dogmatic, but as entirely in the spirit that underpinned the Bill’s intentions. I am surprised therefore that she has not embraced the amendments with the enthusiasm that I anticipated.
The Minister is right: there is a difference of nuance between the opinions of Committee members, for which we make no apology. The Conservative party is an open-minded, plural party. We are an Opposition in the process of developing our ideas on this subject, and it is absolutely right that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough should have the opportunity to express another view—a different model. We are pleased that he is serving alongside us on this Committee and proud of his contribution here and to the House. It would be healthy to explore the key points that he made about the virtues of giving schools freedom and the benefit that that brings to teachers and governors.
Teachers and head teachers are among the most creative people in our society and the more we constrain them, the less we get from them. My hon. Friend is right about that. Successive Governments have probably taken too little account of that creativity, and the constant changes to and imposition of targets, regulations and schemes have done teachers no favours. I want their creativity to flower for the benefit of our children, and I want a Conservative Government who recognise that and who re-elevate the role of educators and enable them to exercise the kind of freedoms described by my hon. Friend.
The amendments, however, are moderate. Indeed, one might say that they are framed in a way in which the Government would find irresistible. Well, resist them they have; they are so fearful of their critics on the left of the Labour party and of those even further to the left in the Liberal Democrats, that they are timid about their own ambitions. We are not timid about those ambitions, but proud and certain about what we want to achieve for the benefit of our country’s children.
Let me be clear: the only reason why we support these kinds of measures and the freedoms that lie at the heart of the Bill, about which we have spoken today, is because they will be beneficial. They will deliver a better education for our children. For that reason and because the issue is so important, I intend to press amendment No. 206 to a Division to test the Committee and the Government’s resolve and toshow where the Conservative party—a principled Opposition, defending the interests of the children of this country—stands.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 15.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Right of governing body to determine own foundation proposals

Sarah Teather: I beg to move amendment No. 154, in clause 20, page 15, line 18, after ‘by', insert
‘a two-thirds majority vote of'.

Christopher Chope: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
No. 155, in clause 20, page 15, line 18, at end insert
‘and, in the case of secondary schools, following consultation with any relevant feeder primary schools.'.

Sarah Teather: The amendments relate to the process of becoming a trust school. During earlier sittings, the hon. Member for Bury, North questioned whetherthe outgoing governing body would always be best placed to make a decision if its school had failed in its duty. Although I have sympathy with his views, Ishall not attempt to deal with them in discussingthe amendments; I shall take it as read that the Government intend that such bodies should make the decision, and merely try to strengthen the majority required.
A two-thirds majority is known as a super-majority. For many businesses, a super-majority is common practice when the board of directors is asked to consider any major constitutional change. In fact, when a board of directors is asked to deal with any special resolutions, such as changing the company’s name, a 75 per cent. majority is normally required; a two-thirds majority is probably rather lenient for the case that I am discussing.
The change proposed is serious; it is not as if people would be voting for a new coffee machine in the staff lounge. A simple majority would not do for business and it should not do for schools. All the community will need to have confidence in any decisions and merely arguing for a majority of those present on the governing body, rather than a two-thirds majority of the whole governing body, does not seem adequate. Such a majority would not be used in the charity or business sectors.
Amendment No. 155 is intended to ensure that schools consult their feeder schools prior to taking any vote, not afterwards. I am sure that Committee members will agree that feeder schools have a vested interest in any decision taken by the schools that they feed. They have a right to be consulted and for their views to be taken into account by the governing body when it makes a decision.
Mr. Hayesrose—

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock,The Chairmanadjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at One o'clock.